GENIUS FORUMS

Pye wrote:Thanks for the exegesis, Kevin. I didn't figure that even in its ("compassion") recasting, that it would have anything to do with people for you.

Since other people are really yourself, there are no other people. For this reason, true compassion is never about other people.

Sue writes:

To help me understand, could you please explain what you mean by -

“To want ultimately the truth is the finest, the very finest, for it is the measure of everything. Past that…”

And of course, I deserve to be called out on this linear blip, Sue, and I was lazy in hoping that the narrative surrounding it would explain.

We could quibble that 'perfect' realization means a seamless move between it and the subsequent movements in one's life, but this is not (and in a sense, is!) how I have experienced it and is largely what I mean by the "return" (to subsequent living). Even though it is with ease and knowing and such that I am seeing things these days, I am still presented again and again with all sorts of configurations to recognize in which to address and witness this truth -- all sorts of young minds and their thinking, in my vocation, to ease and urge as well. Those who teach here are living their return as well and are clear enough to recognize varying approaches they could or could not have taken. This is all I mean by this "past" that -- the living practice of this all in return.

And Kevin,

Since other people are really yourself, there are no other people. For this reason, true compassion is never about other people.

(:D) My filter built up on you; my bad.

And true as it is, one still must work this mighty extension from the part that sees into the part(s) that don't. Yes, I know -- no parts. But you get my meaning anyway, at least as teachers, I hope.

Nobody likes a lot of forensic crapping forth about dietary concerns, so let me stand now on the side of the positive things I know of and describe the ayurvedic approach in general eating principles. These are what I have found to make the greatest assist in mental clarity.

Ayurveda, stated simply, is another form of eating for and with the present. This means one's food is the closest to its original form; the closest in agricultural location; the least over-handled and over-processed; the freshest picked and most immediate possible. Duh! What excellent metaphors we have working here then, with the encouragement to what's in front of one's face, too.

In its full and fancier forms, ayurveda breaks down people and food types into three categories that are interesting, but fussy when they needn't be. So I look for where these categories overlap with what I know of Chinese medicine, and there we can find the overall and helpful recommendation that we 1. eat a largely alkaline diet (sattva) 2. consisting of freshness and immediacy 3. of food that is less processed and overhandled 4. and of food that digests quickly and does not leave large meaty-cheesy-acidic lumps in us to bog us down, etc.

Handy in another of the three categories is raja - the "fiery" food - not as a total diet, but as a jump-start to digesting large lumps when they are there. Hence, eat your chilis and things of the like -- they can help move your digestion along. This is the use of the lemon in your water. It's a digestive assist that is alkaline in nature, rather than acidic. Eaten solely, these rajasic foods set up the same acidic production of mucus mentioned above. Tamasic foods (3rd category) are the bogging-down foods (styled "comfort foods" in western culture) and are generally avoided, except in cases where medicinal use is indicated.

(Still with me? I know -- it's annoying :) but) It is also very simple. You want to eat with respect to the present, which includes not eating so much that you only want to go to sleep. You want only to address what is hungry in you now, and not, like a bear, pack it in to get ready for hibernation. You want to favor alkalinity and you want to eat for efficient digestion. If you have ever seen actual pieces of the food you eat in your waste, you are looking at a very overburdened digestive system, too busy to accept even nutrition.

All this reminds me -- of all people -- Ernest Hemingway's (!) posthumously published A Movable Feast, about his "salad days" (meaning 'poor) as a young writer in Paris. In it, he describes the difference between going to the museums and concerts stuffed full of food, in contrast to visiting them whilst on the edge of hunger. One's alertness to things - in his case, the art, the colour, the forms, the sound - is significantly enhanced for what's in front of one's face, instead of made heavy and sleepy with what's in one's stomach. He felt his whole way of seeing was significantly enhanced with this tiny edge -- even urgency to things.

Sapius is making a good point about the time, effort, expense, to eat well. Little about our cultural needs to produce and feed across vast time and distances supports this notion. Not to mention our neuroses about security, comfort. Nevertheless, it is not rocket science to grow vegetables, or buy from local farmers, or buy as fresh as you can, or know the difference between an alkaline or acidic food, or know what the word "overprocessing" means. And oddly, too, to know what is means to be "too full." This is another one of those attentiveness things, in paying attention to the way the food you eat makes you feel. You'd be surprised how few people have paid attention to these manifestations, both subtle and fully evident.

How could I have forgotten to mention the epidemic of (sugar) diabetes in America in the fermented-foods post? The Chinese medicos consider sugar to be a poison, plain and simple.

Eat for your stomach, your body, and not just for your mouth. The mouth, as we know, is hungry for "chocolately sensation" all the time!

Pye wrote:

And of course, I deserve to be called out on this linear blip, Sue, and I was lazy in hoping that the narrative surrounding it would explain.

Linear blip, eh? It looks more like fuzzy thinking to me - as did the “narrative surrounding” it. But let’s have another look and see if we can unravel your ideas about Ultimate matters. (To make it clearer, I’ve numbered each sentence.)

(1) Even if I can take in the whole of totality, I cannot do this for everyone else and shall still and always find myself alone, no matter the size of the cosmos expanded inside. (2)I am not in haste for my dissolution into it in life; death takes care of that. (3)To want ultimately the truth is the finest, the very finest, for it is the measure of everything. (4)Past that, I want to be here to witness and move in it. (5)One will end in it later on.

(1)You imagine a “totality” that doesn’t already include you, which you’re not sure if you can “take in”, but certain that you’ll remain separate from other people - who obviously aren’t to be part of ‘your’ totality. Wow! That, I’d like to see?

(2)Then you inform us that you’re not too concerned about becoming part of ‘your’ totality in life; instead, you’ll just wait until they carry you off in a box - then you’ll become part of it. Does that mean you’ll be an enlightened corpse?

(3)The next bit has an unusual combination of words, that don’t really make sense to me, “To want ultimately the truth…” Do you mean; “To want Ultimate Truth”, or "To want truths that are ‘Ultimate’", or do you just mean that after having a happy life you might consider spending the last few seconds of it thinking about the meaning of life and death? You do continue by saying that truth “is the measure of everything”, but you don’t seem very impressed by that fact, because you have plans that go “Past that”.

(4)Those plans are to “witness and move in it”. Well, now you have me totally confused. Are you talking about the “totality” that you’re somehow seperated from, and of which you're not sure if you can “take in”. Or, is it the “totality” where you plan not to make any rushed “dissolution” into, having the choice, as you do, to remain seperate from that "totality"? If, it’s the “totality” which you’ll meet after your “death”, how do you plan to “witness and move in it” now? This “totality” of yours doesn’t seem to be able to work out what it is.

(5) “One will end in it later on.” – again, what is “it”; that you are now separated from, of which you’re not sure if you can “take it” in, but of which you’re not racing to jump into, because you can get ‘it’ anyway when you die?

Yeah, that last sentence beats them all. Its meaning is clear – you have no intention of seriously thinking anything philosophical, but you do like the sound of your own voice. Fair enough.

* * *

But wait - maybe I've got it all wrong. Maybe that last sentence means that you are considering taking up philosophy some time "later" on. If that is the case - I hope it is sooner than later.

Sue

Pye,

Sapius is making a good point about the time, effort, expense, to eat well.

Not necessarily. I’m not against a healthy diet at all. It would be foolish to do so. If one wants to travel a 100 miles to find a good diet, good for him, but if I were he, I would be preoccupied with my thoughts all the way and back. One can be in “meditation” every waking hour one has. But in my earlier post I was simply pointing out that good physical health is necessary for a healthy mind, but a healthy mind need not necessarily tend to lean towards philosophical thinking. That’s all. A mind has its own mental cause and effect to go where it wants. That does not mean that it is severed from the over all cause and effect.

As far as healthy food goes, I know form the very beginning that I am a slave to my tongue. So why indulge in a thing which benefits me only in a localized manner. If I over eat, or have things full of sugars and fats, I can feel the difference because I’m very uncomfortable, which obviously means I got to control myself. Fortunately, I did not have a sweet tooth even as a child, but otherwise, I have eaten every damn thing.

My personal point of view tells me that if one is totally inclined towards the quest of ‘why’, that is to really know what truth lies behind it all, he is so preoccupied in this thought, ALL the time, that every other thought becomes secondary. I have never locked myself up for the sake of knowing that truth; in fact I have traveled to almost every continent, even to the remotest corners. But never ever could I let go of the quest, which made me study each and every aspect of life and things around me, first hand. In fact, I’m traveling this evening and won’t be around for a while.

I have never studied, academically or otherwise, any of the philosophers. In that respect I am still a clean slate so to speak. The only book I read was a concise summary called the ‘Basic teachings of the great Philosophers’ by S.E. Frost, JR. That is the only book I have on Philosophy as such. But I have found that each mind is a philosopher to some degree, it is only a matter of direction through natural conditioning. All other knowledge has come to me as piece meal, and all that I do is try to connect these seemingly unconnected points to make a sensible big picture. To me it is simple reasoning. I try not to miss out on anything that Reality has to offer, according to my own sensibility, though.

Well, take care all, and good-bye for now.

Pye wrote:

We could quibble that 'perfect' realization means a seamless move between it and the subsequent movements in one's life, but this is not (and in a sense, is!) how I have experienced it and is largely what I mean by the "return" (to subsequent living). Even though it is with ease and knowing and such that I am seeing things these days, I am still presented again and again with all sorts of configurations to recognize in which to address and witness this truth -- all sorts of young minds and their thinking, in my vocation, to ease and urge as well. Those who teach here are living their return as well and are clear enough to recognize varying approaches they could or could not have taken. This is all I mean by this "past" that -- the living practice of this all in return.

I don’t know how anyone could “quibble” over matters concerning Truth. There is only one Truth, and you can only have one “perfect realization” of it. After which, your actions are in accordance with that one Truth – there is no “return” to ignorance.

The reason your mind is “presented again and again with all sorts of configurations to recognize in which to address and witness…” is because you haven’t, as yet, worked out what Truth is. When you do, you will not have to work to recognize, address, or witness Truth, because it is always everywhere.

As far as those “young minds” you have access to, are concerned; I hope you are not preaching to them, any of the same mumbo jumbo you have delighted us with. The role of any teacher is to clear the way for those who come after them, not muddy it up.

Sue

Sue, as regards your forensic questioning above, why we would we want to keep grinding down something that has already been admitted to mush (my 'laziness', your 'fuzzy thinking'). I do not admit perfect possession and expression of ultimate truth hence the writing about it; I do not have the years of experience working with it in this format here. I did write moving from the particular to the universal and back again; I have not mastered the total transcendence of my particularity. And when I look ahead to such a thing, even its possibility, I still look to the return. It means nothing to me to be in possession of ultimate truth without what then will become its living with and in.

People write here at all stages of this; I hope you can lend them as well the lessons, the dressing-downs, the fixed attention that you've given me. Seriously: I appreciate the calling-out and will learn something from it, but please be sure to look within yourself to know that it is purely your love of ultimate truth that directs your approach to me. Unless you are the one perfectly enlightened person on this forum, I will have no other way to identify the thing that arrives 10 feet ahead of you in each of your addresses to me. And if something else is there, you could be teaching through something far more potentially damaging than mumbo-jumbo. I don't believe you are completely clear and clean this way in your reaction to my presence and writing on the forum; nevertheless I appreciate the thinking.

Leyla Shen wrote:I define misemotion as inappropriate emotion. On the level of human, it is inappropriate to respond to certain situations through certain emotions. Yet, we see this all the time. A woman who storms off in a fluster of resentment on being watched knitting, for example, would be deemed misemotional.

But where's the line of distinction to be drawn with regards a flustered response to being watched doing anything at all? If we're going to argue that an emotional response to some circumstance can be appropriate, reasonable or sane (or otherwise), it surely comes down to the individual's subjective viewpoint. We end up with no measure, other than the absurd one of consensus, as to what constitutes appropriate and/or inappropriate emotional resposnes. No?


Dan Rowden

LS: I define misemotion as inappropriate emotion. On the level of human, it is inappropriate to respond to certain situations through certain emotions. Yet, we see this all the time. A woman who storms off in a fluster of resentment on being watched knitting, for example, would be deemed misemotional.

DR: But where's the line of distinction to be drawn with regards a flustered response to being watched doing anything at all? If we're going to argue that an emotional response to some circumstance can be appropriate, reasonable or sane (or otherwise), it surely comes down to the individual's subjective viewpoint. We end up with no measure, other than the absurd one of consensus, as to what constitutes appropriate and/or inappropriate emotional resposnes. No?

Well, of course, this question leads right into the yet unresolved one (for me) as to whether or not there can be such a thing as an individual that is emotion-less. The reason for this is that to follow the above line of thought is to assume first that there are other individuals and, second, that there can be no such thing as an emotionless individual. Thus, sanity is distinguished from insanity primarily on the basis of what is and isn’t appropriate behaviour (which, of course, has a lot to do with emotion). A reasoning individual still experiences and manifests emotion, yet he is regarded as sane (or, at least, saner) than an unreasoning one. On that same basis, might I not reasonably ask you the same question: surely, reason comes down to the individual’s subjective viewpoint and, again, we end up with no measure?

When I approach the question, however, from Sue’s idea and Pye’s inference from it:

Sue: When you see everyone as you, you do the best you can to help them on the road to wisdom.

Pye: I rather thought Sue's comment was more developed than a golden rule. More like the other person being you, in a sense.

I have to ask, Pye (or anyone), what is the difference between seeing everyone as you and the golden rule?

I can understand Sue’s comment above in, say, a fundamental or ultimate sense. But, truth be known, if I cannot be 100% sure whether “others” exist or not outside of my own brain construction (subjectivity), what choice have I got in the matter anyway -- I’m already doing that, whether I admit it or not.

I am only touching on my thoughts here, and hope to post some more on this soon, Dan. I appreciate the challenge. If I may be allowed a little sentimentality here, one of my greatest aspirations is to be able to say exactly what I mean and be satisfied that I have said it. I think it appropriate to note that I think this forum -- and those who write to it with passion and in earnest -- have greatly assisted me in that direction.

But, that’s enough of that. For my parting comment, I will, for the reasons above the above paragraph, address Kevin’s comment as well:

Since other people are really yourself, there are no other people. For this reason, true compassion is never about other people.

If compassion is actually understanding “yourself,” then it is very much about “other people” as well based on the ideas behind my comments to Sue’s (and Pye's) statement above.

Pye wrote:

These general things might be a start on the conversation, Diebert. I hope it's the direction and specificity you are looking for. I think you've asked an important question that deserves looking into, even and especially for people looking to "enlighten" themselves. No, food alone won't do it (just as with meditation

Nobody likes a lot of forensic crapping forth about dietary concerns, so let me stand now on the side of the positive things I know of and describe the ayurvedic approach in general eating principles. These are what I have found to make the greatest assist in mental clarity.

One's alertness to things - in his case, the art, the colour, the forms, the sound - is significantly enhanced for what's in front of one's face, instead of made heavy and sleepy with what's in one's stomach. He felt his whole way of seeing was significantly enhanced with this tiny edge -- even urgency to things.

Yeah, the state of the body, its total chemical and electrical activity is part and parcel of all of our mental activities, perceptions as well as background thought and feeling. No surprise when taking causation into account for all we think or feel. Or think we feel. Whatever.

Nietzsche actually wrote quite a bit about this as well. Not only was he subject to an increasing sensitive digestion or suspicious of any stimulants but he took it an important step further:

One will ask me why on earth I've been relating all these little things that are generally considered matters of complete indifference: I only harm myself, the more so if I am destined to represent great tasks. Answer: these small things — nutrition, place, climate, recreation, the whole casuistry of selfishness — are inconceivably more important than everything one has taken to be...(From "Why I am so Clever", Ecco Homo)

It seems relevant to realize how our diet, physical states, cultural background, lifestyle, surroundings or activity level often form quite a balanced system that has lots of individual parts in the sense that while there might be some universal 'wise' things to do or leave, for many things it might be more tricky to determine their effect. Not to mention the amazing power of placebo. Just saw a documentary where they found amazing changes in brain chemistry, dopamine levels for example, when applying simple psychological or even surgical deceptions. It could make severe pains stop that painkillers couldn't and heal almost completely for example some people with Parkinson's. This is another topic altogether though.

Forcefully changing one part of that system might benefit other parts but just as well upset the system in a less desirable way. For myself I have made changes in my overall 'system' over time using my hard gained observations about the effects something had on my overall being. I'm not one that just follows advices of others though I do take it into account. Often it just happens though as leaves falling of a tree. I guess this is why many rely on gurus or tradition (not to mention habit) to tell them what to take or leave. Somewhere to put your faith and place your bets. But still that seems like working backwards, or at least a very slow and possibly ineffective approach, like trial and error?

But the most interesting aspect of this all for me is not some magic bullet to facilitate enlightenment, but to examine the effect all things have on our affects, concentration and clarity or better yet: how our attachments and 'blocks' relate to them in subtle ways. But even less subtle states like depression and ADD which could drag someone really down even when willing to enter the philosophical path. Recently I was reading about someone claiming to be cured from severe depression by changing diet only, while years of medicine and therapy didn't do it. He said even: "I would say that the things you most like are what most cause you harm", which might be stated a bit extreme but one should consider this of course, also in more general terms.

Yet, in closing it should be said that going after the root cause of our suffering and ignorance should always be the main concern. It's only because of the practical reality of the karmic webs we are caught in that I believe it's worth considering, for the sake of those who are deeply caught into it, to gain knowledge about certain causes and effects relating to our bodies and minds.

For myself I have made changes in my overall 'system' over time using my hard gained observations about the effects something had on my overall being. I'm not one that just follows advices of others though I do take it into account.

I entirely agree, Diebert, because all of this speaks of attentiveness. This is what I particularly value in the ayurvedic approach described above. Any looking-into causation such as this requires one pay attention to what is happening within oneself. Nice if you can get all that fresh and immediate food, but better if one simply notices the subtle (and not-so subtle) effects of the things they eat. Like Sapius, I have survived all sorts of caustic foods; but I am unable to suggest they have had no bearing on my state of mind. Not when I can do something else to achieve a different bearing.

Nietzsche actually wrote quite a bit about this as well.

Personally, it's good to see Nietzsche brought up in this context (I almost did it myself!). He speaks elsewhere of national character and temperament in relationship to food (more time, space, energy, I'll look some of it up), and he was, indeed, a great experimenter with his own states. I want to state clearly that I agree a mono-focus upon this one thing might produce nothing but obsessive sidetracks, just as a mono-focus on anything will. Nevertheless, like Nietzsche, I think we have not paid enough attention to the "inconceivabl[e]" importance here, and like you, I really don't think it needs a particularly hard defense, laws of causation and all. Resistance to the idea is part and parcel of the long separation between body and mind so much of philosophy has historically insisted upon.

Yet, in closing it should be said that going after the root cause of our suffering and ignorance should always be the main concern.

What if that root cause rests in the body? How shall it be addressed as long as the body (physical manifestation) is that which is enabling us to speak or "be" here at all?

I have to ask, Pye (or anyone), what is the difference between seeing everyone as you and the golden rule?

It's a good question, Leyla, and language will probably fail me here. I guess I see this as an inside/outside thing. A "rule" is in front of you, grafted on (however useful it can be). But a sense of being or seeing it -- this strikes me as an inside job. I'll try to come up with something better than this.

I'd also like to encourage your continued thinking on emotions and I'd like to think on it with you (and all so inclined). There is a book recently published by Martha Nussbaum called Upheavals in Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions, and it is 714 pages of horribly (academically) careful stepping that I think I can condense for you in just a few lines.

Nussbaum states that emotions are the seat of values and that beneath every emotion is a value-held that is either being offended or served. It doesn't mean that just because one feels a thing that it is a good clean value, but simply that it points to one. For instance, that woman on the train -- her reaction -- was the outer skin, the manifestation of a value-held for her. How could I know, but perhaps that value rested in having privacy in a crowd or something. And her response was seeing that value offended. If we take this all the way as Nussbaum does, we would have to ask if values could even exist without emotions indicating them.

There is so much to look at here, but I'll pull up with this general thought. I have often thought if the project of enlightenment (as regards emotions) to be a project of emotional refinement too. "Compassion" -- refined compassion -- could be stated as the encompass of all possible emotion; the understanding thereof; and in itself (compassion), the outer skin of a deeply held value that there is no separation between us, or at least the understanding that we suffer thinking, believing, and living because there (apparently) is. Like you, I have difficulty imagining a pure and thorough transcendence of my particularity, even if I think that I have entered seamless situations of feeling past-and-into other people's skins.

Yes, there is a bit to look at. I'll write more to this thread as soon as I can give it the time I think it deserves.

we would have to ask if values could even exist without emotions indicating them

No, they wouldn't, providing one doesn't falsely limit emotions to just those strong ones- love, hate, lust etc. Emotions and any sort of feeling, such as respect for truth for example, are the same thing.

Pye wrote:

we would have to ask if values could even exist without emotions indicating them

The emotions don’t “indicat(e)” values, they construct and support them. Jamesh is correct when he says that values couldn’t exist without the emotions. We all value some things over other things – it’s a natural thing to do. If I value the colour blue, I do so because of innumerable causes, one of which may be that it is the colour of the sky and sea, both of which I value because of innumerable causes, one of which may have been a love of open spaces, which I value because of innumerable cause, one of which may have been due to feeling hot and uncomfortable in too small a bed, etc. So, my valuing ‘blue’ over ‘orange’ is awash with emotions, which are all tied into other emotions. This emotional mix is what helps construct each person, and because the emotions are always changing, so are we.

Even the valuing of Truth changes – as you’ll read in my next post.


Sue

Pye wrote:

I have often thought if the project of enlightenment (as regards emotions) to be a project of emotional refinement too.

Enlightenment isn’t interested in "refin(ing)" the emotions; it’s out to destroy them.

Most emotional attachments muddy-up the mind; making thinking difficult and keeping enlightenment out of reach. The only useful ones are those that get you started philosophically, such as; love of truth, hatred for falsehoods, longing to understand everything, wanting an end to suffering, and, working hard to achieve these goals. What makes these emotions different from others is that they can lead to the downfall of all emotions. For example: loving Truth means that you don’t ever want to be in error, but you soon come to see that this ‘love’ isn’t correct either - so, it too gets left behind with all the other loves and hates, needs and wants.

Sue

You cannot destroy emotion unless you define it in such a way that limits it, which would be to define it solely as a “reaction” rather than a particular quality (or set of qualities) of mental and physical state.

But to even consider the notion of “reaction,” one has to believe there is someone there being reacted against or toward -- namely, themselves and others respectively.

So, a fully enlightened Buddha, not believing in an inherent self, would not “react” to anything. However, does a fully enlightened Buddha not manifest any quality of mental and physical state? Of course not, he is himself but a manifestation of Nature.

Gut wrenching!

There is always a chain of events which leads to the arisal of an emotion, involving both the hardwiring of the bain and its software (i.e. its memories, values, habits, conceptual outlook on life, etc). Since both aspects are critical for the generation of an emotion, it is in the software side that a spiritual person can have an effect. Although he cannot alter his hardware - with its reptillian brain, hormones, adrenalin glands, fight-or-flight mechanisms, etc - he can address the problem of emotion via his software programming.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The weakest link in this instance is conscious perception. The chain of events which leads to an emotion can only be kickstarted into action when one is consciously perceiving a threatening situation, or a situation involving gain or loss. (It can also be kickstarted by a subconscious thought of threat or gain/loss. But this can be classed as a conscious perception, as far as this issue is concerned.)

The perfectly-enlightened person is thus able to eliminate the experience of emotion altogether. By no longer believing in the existence of his self, he can no longer perceive situations of threat or gain/loss. And so the chain of events which leads to an emotion response can never trigger into action inside him.

-

Sue wrote:

Jamesh is correct when he says that values couldn’t exist without the emotions.

Only in the sense that a bird couldn't exist without its egg. As you say, the emotions are necessary to begin with in order to place value truth and embark on the spiritual path. But just as a bird eventually has to hatch out of its egg if it wants to develop to the next stage of growth and fly away, the truthful person eventually has to leave behind the egg of emotion.

He still continues to have values and respond to things, but in a non-emotional way.

-

[Edited for grammer/spelling - DQ]

The perfectly-enlightened person is thus able to eliminate the experience of emotion altogether. By no longer believing in the existence of his self, he can no longer perceive situations of threat or gain/loss. And so the chain of events which leads to an emotion response can never trigger into action inside him

Perhaps you are aware of this, but I think what I am about to say is important to consider.

I dont think it is as simple as choosing to not believe in the self. Belief and non-belief are one in the same. A person who believes in God, and an athiest who 'disbelieves in god, are both 'believers'. Athiesism is a belief system. Not-believing that you exist, is believing that you dont exist. Why would a person choose to believe that they do not exist? Absurdly enough, one would probably do so in order to get some sort of future reward. Who is getting the reward? The self of course! So do you see the trick? One is choosing to not believe they exist in order to experience something great. Who is the experiencer?

(That was good, David!)

I think what David means is that the fully enlightened Buddha is not under the delusion of an inherently existing self.

This one word makes all the difference because, through it, he understands that his actions are as much about “self” as they are “others.”

He exists only in any given moment in contrast to the existence of others things (including “other people”). But, the next moment, that contrast -- and thereby his existence within it -- changes. Not being attached to any particular form (conceptual or otherwise) of self, he does not react emotionally to any such changes but responds rationally to them.

Not responding emotionally to anyone/anything means that there is no personal, vested interest. He has nothing to gain or lose, and neither does anyone else, since gain and loss are ideas only available to someone who believes they exist inherently: who believes they exist in or toward some permanent form to which they are emotionally attached. It is not true that one who does not believe they exist inherently believes they exist non-inherently since there is no way to evidence the belief -- empirically and logically -- in an inherently existing self. You would not be you if not for the countless causes that make you, you. Understanding this, the fully enlightened Buddha does not stagnate "in the past" with ideas of what should have been and should be but isn't, or what is but shouldn't be but is -- but embraces the infinite nature of Reality and does not, once again, insist on (implicitly or explicitly) any particular form of self. It simply doesn’t make any sense.

Sue writes:

Enlightenment isn’t interested in "refin(ing)" the emotions; it’s out to destroy them.

Most emotional attachments muddy-up the mind; making thinking difficult and keeping enlightenment out of reach. The only useful ones are those that get you started philosophically, such as; love of truth, hatred for falsehoods, longing to understand everything, wanting an end to suffering, and, working hard to achieve these goals. What makes these emotions different from others is that they can lead to the downfall of all emotions. For example: loving Truth means that you don’t ever want to be in error, but you soon come to see that this ‘love’ isn’t correct either - so, it too gets left behind with all the other loves and hates, needs and wants.

Ta for the clarity, Sue, and I have understood this intellectually for a very long time but clearly have not "gotten" it (as in achieved in actuality). Let me pose another question: Is this perfect Buddhahood void as well of placidity, or serenity, or other "states" (or feelings) to this effect? In other words, the end of all suffering is -- nothing(ness) [no-feeling]?

Bear with an analogy and correct at will: If there is a ladder to enlightenment, and perhaps the rungs be these stages of realization, then the last rung stood upon at the top is that of love, and further, a love that refines itself only toward truth. When the person is ready to leap into this state of perfection, they can kick out from under them the very structure that got them there and enter into . . . pure consciousness, I assume? And this state of pure consciousness will not sense (feel) itself as such?

The emotions don’t “indicat(e)” values, they construct and support them.

Depends. If one uses their awareness to locate the value beneath the emotions that are protecting and supporting it, they have a chance to see it and re-evaluate it. Sure, if one takes their emotions for an end in themselves, they might never see what they are standing upon.

Modern psychology (ugh) would say there is simply another emotion needing unearthed beneath the outward emotions of the emotional person and would expect to end its work there in unearthing it and giving vent to its feeling. I am thinking (through Nussbaum's idea) that there is something far more useful to "do" with one's emotions besides indulging them. I think this pointing-to is possible, and even desirable, for people who want to begin working with their own delusions - or rather, the "correctness" of the values being offended or served by their emotions.

David writes:

He still continues to have values and respond to things, but in a non-emotional way.

What way then? It gives the oddest sensation that one escapes autonomic, unexamined responses to things (emotions) . . . only to return to a reflexive, no-need-to-examine-anymore state of being. But of course I see the vast distance between the two things . . . .

Pye,

Here’s a quiz: What am I?

I have a body which depends on the earth and sun for food, water, sunshine and gravity.
I have a brain that depends on the body.
I have a mind that depends on the brain.
I have thoughts that depend on the mind.

Answer: You are nothing and everything.

* * *

When you see that you have no beginnings, nor ends to you, or any bits of you, or any bits of bits of you – and that ‘you’ can’t exist in the way you thought you did – that is, separated and unique from everything else in the universe – then you can rest easy in the universe knowing that everything is ‘you’, as you are ‘everything’.

The “ladder” then, is not kicked away – it’s just seen for what it is – a ladder, with you standing on it. Neither you, nor the ladder, exist separate from one another, but neither, do you, nor the ladder, not exist separately from one another.

The reason there isn’t anything to love, cherish, fear, satisfy, reach out for, etc is because there isn’t any 'thing' to love, cherish, fear, satisfy, and reach out for. It’s all you, and you’re it.

Sue

Cory,

DQ: The perfectly-enlightened person is thus able to eliminate the experience of emotion altogether. By no longer believing in the existence of his self, he can no longer perceive situations of threat or gain/loss. And so the chain of events which leads to an emotion response can never trigger into action inside him

CP: Perhaps you are aware of this, but I think what I am about to say is important to consider.

I dont think it is as simple as choosing to not believe in the self. Belief and non-belief are one in the same. A person who believes in God, and an athiest who 'disbelieves in god, are both 'believers'. Athiesism is a belief system. Not-believing that you exist, is believing that you dont exist. Why would a person choose to believe that they do not exist? Absurdly enough, one would probably do so in order to get some sort of future reward. Who is getting the reward? The self of course! So do you see the trick? One is choosing to not believe they exist in order to experience something great. Who is the experiencer?

Leyla answered this pretty well. I would just add that I was using the word "believe" in the sense of fully giving oneself over to the truth. The act of believing in truth is not one of arbitrarily choosing a particular set of beliefs in order to obtain a reward. Rather, it is one of valuing truth so much that one is willing to sacrifice one's entire life to it. One believes in truth.

Of course, in the initial stages, a person might do this for a reward of some kind - e.g. the attainament of freedom, bliss, ultimate consciousness, permanent knowledge, etc. But as he develops towards wisdom, those sorts of concerns soon vanish and he begins to become devoted to the truth simply because it is the truth.

-

Sue writes:

The reason there isn’t anything to love, cherish, fear, satisfy, reach out for, etc is because there isn’t any 'thing' to love, cherish, fear, satisfy, and reach out for. It’s all you, and you’re it.

It is something to imagine this an effortless understanding, and not one that still requires mindfulness.

No comment on the "serenity" or "placidity" of buddha-nature?

Hello, Pye.

Just a few rushed thoughts on the fly towards bed!

Serenity is an interesting one. I remember posing that question a while ago. I don't recall a response.

However, let's take a look at what it means:

serene 3 : marked by or suggestive of utter calm and unruffled repose or quietude

Though this appears to have the same basis as being an emotion as all the rest (that is, a state of quality of being), it seems to me that its all in the perceived manifestation.

It is on this basis, in fact, that I have found it difficult to conceive of such a thing as an "emotionless individual." or, fully enlightened Buddha. But, if I twist my thinking a little bit, I can see that this state -- when constant -- is different to the consideration of emotional responses to events/situations. It is seamless and unchanging. Does it then qualify as an emotion, per se? It would if one were to experience it momentarily in contrast to the experience of an array of other emotions.

In this way only, this particular emotion is no different to the rest in that there is something apparent; something (state) projected, such as in anger or antagonism or boredom and apathy in reaction to events/situations.

One would be hard pressed to consider a constant state of anger as a representation of enlightenment.